Common Law with Mike Murenzvi
“Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” ~ Jesus Christ
The contentious Clause 11 of the Medical Services Amendment Bill was spectacularly disavowed by the Deputy Minister of Health and Child Care, Sleiman Kwidini. Clause 11, which was a wholesale amendment to the Termination of Pregnancy Act, was added to the Bill through an amendment in the National Assembly.
Bill presented in the Senate
On Wednesday, 18 February 2026, the Deputy Minister of Health and Child Care presented the Medical Services Amendment Bill to the Senate. In his presentation speech, he spoke specifically about the first ten clauses and curiously omitted the eleventh one.
Immediately thereafter, five Senators responded to the presentation speech. All but one spoke about the infamous clause 11.
Sen. Chief Charumbira led the charge, asking if the omission was by design. The Chief opined that the House needed notice of when the Bill would be presented because they had been waiting for some time since October last year. Over and above this, he stated that he was prepared to go to war over clause 11.
“If it is this issue, we are going to debate like never before. You will bring everyone in your Ministry because this thing is going to get a lot of opposition. We did not want to just oppose without adequate preparation. So, my appeal is, if the abortion clause has been taken out, there is peace; let us move. If it is still there, I would propose that the debate commence tomorrow afternoon so we can organise ourselves. Thank you.”
Sen. Moses Manyengavana (CCC) took to the floor soon after in support of Chief Charumbira’s comments. He stated, “We support the rest of the sections, but we want to debate Section 11 extensively, because, personally, I do not support it. There are a lot of issues that are contrary to our culture. So, if that section is not there, then our Bill can proceed.”
Next up was Sen. Kudakwashe Matibiri (CCC), who highlighted the progressive nature of the Bill, especially clauses regarding access to healthcare for people in custody and provision of emergency services by private healthcare institutions for 24 hours, where the government would assist with cost recovery measures.
Sen. Chief Ngungumbane also supported his fellow Chief and queried the stark omission of clause 11 from the Deputy Minister’s presentation speech, noting that the clause was accordingly amended by the National Assembly in the Bill that was transmitted to the Senate.
Next up was Sen. Prisca Mupfumira, also in line with the Chiefs. She raised concerns that the Deputy Minister may have intentionally omitted clause 11 in his speech while clandestinely keeping it in the Bill to get it passed through some form of underhanded technicality.
The Deputy Minister responded to all the queries, assuring the House that as a Ministry, they would only be presenting the first 10 clauses for the Senate to consider. In a shocking denial of biblical Petrean proportions, he denied knowledge of the existence of clause 11 before the introduction of the Bill to the Senate.
“What I want to assure this House is that Clause 11 is a surprise to us as a Ministry. We were surprised to learn that when the Bill was introduced to the Senate, there was Clause 11.”
What’s surprising about the denial is that the actual Minister, Douglas Mombeshora, was the one who steered the Bill in the National Assembly and agreed with the proposed amendments that brought clause 11 to life. The National Assembly Hansard of 23 October 2025 reports Mombeshora, upon motion of the clause’s inclusion, as saying, “Thank you Madam Chair. I agree to the proposed amendment.”
So, how does a whole Deputy Minister and Member of Parliament deny the existence of the clause and say, “The Minister was even shocked when he received calls to say Clause 11 is talking about abortion.”
Following a tete-a-tete with the Deputy President of the Senate, the Deputy Minister made it abundantly clear that he was discarding clause 11 from the current Bill, and if it is deemed necessary at a later date, it would be presented as a standalone Bill. “The clause was smuggled in; it was not there originally,” said Kwidini.
With that, the amendment deleting clause 11 from the Bill was later filed with the Clerk of the Senate.
On Thursday, 19 February 2026, soon after the Question-and-Answer session, the Bill was subjected to Committee. There was no debate or objection to any of the first 10 clauses. The Deputy Minister duly proposed the deletion of clause 11, which was wholeheartedly accepted by the Senate, and the amended Bill sailed through in a swift ten-minute process. The now amended Bill with ten clauses was referred to the National Assembly for consideration since it originated from there, and they must confirm agreement with any amendments made by the Senate.
Is that the end?
Depending on the temerity and insistence of the members of the National Assembly, this might not be the end of clause 11.
The Fifth Schedule of the Constitution states that in the event of disagreement on a Bill between the Houses, the originating House has the right to present the Bill to the President for assent and signature in the form in which it was passed by the National Assembly. Again, to stress the point, this now depends totally on the strength and conviction of the members of the National Assembly on the provisions of clause 11.
So, the fight isn’t over; there is an extra time provision available for arguments on either side of clause 11 to be made now with MPs for the consideration stage to finalise the Bill and put it to bed.
[See also: COLUMN | Zimbabwe’s Abortion Law Debate: Here’s what new amendments mean for women and girls
Column | Zimbabwe’s Abortion Law Debate: Between Public Health, Rights and Religion Part 3
Zimbabwe’s Abortion Law Debate: Between Public Health, Rights and Religion – Part 2
Zimbabwe’s Abortion Law Debate: Between Public Health, Rights and Religion
COLUMN | After landmark ruling, a major update is coming to Zimbabwe’s Abortion Law]
_______________________
Mike Murenzvi writes in his personal capacity, and his views are not associated with any organisation he is, or may be, affiliated with.
